Lindsey v. . Sanderlin

10 S.E. 518, 104 N.C. 331
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1889·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Shepherd, J.:

The argument of the plaintiff’s counsel was addressed to the general character of his Honor’s charge in reference to negligence. We regret that we are precluded from passing upon that question. There is not only a failure to assign error (see McKinnon v. Morrison and Carlton v. R. R. Co., at this term), but the case expressly states that the instructions given were not excepted to.

The judgment, therefore, must be Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lindsey v. . Sanderlin, 10 S.E. 518, 104 N.C. 331 (N.C. 1889).

10 S.E. 518 (Lindsey v. . Sanderlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barber v. . Buffaloe
29 S.E. 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)